JEC 2013

[EddieH]

QUOTE "Aside from giving the individuals a more objective idea of what is required, it wouldn't be a bad thing for outsiders to the sport (eg journalists) to have a benchmark on which to gauge the performance of out top athletes."

Except that unless you set the standard unimpressively low (by pure running standards) you'd exclude a number of serious orienteering talents.

[NeilC]

I seem to recall that the expected minimum 3k times (for the boys) were around 10mins for the lower squads and 9mins for the top guys.

[Vidalos]

QUOTE Except that unless you set the standard unimpressively low (by pure running standards) you'd exclude a number of serious orienteering talents.

eddie, isn't that a contradiction and the main point being discussed here ? you cannot be 'unimpressively low' and expect to compete seriously at International Events . I guess this is the point BOF are saying to those juniors in their roundabout way

[EddieH]

No I don't believe it is. Orienteering is a running sport, but there is much more to it than that, both mentally and physically.

The technical should be obvious, but from the running angle track running has little to do with the ability to run through terrain. Clearly the faster you can run and maintain it the more it helps, but it is not everything.

[graeme]

Ok Graeame , to be serious

OK, to be serious...

...the whole elitist system of inventing "international competitions", not letting people run, and then bitching about selection for them is so badly flawed and destructive it needs to be abandoned. Especially for children. It drives the majority of juniors out of the sport and establishes a perception of a cliquey "us and them", "elite and the rest".

I don't think our elites especially buy into elitism. They seem happy to pitch up to punter-races like Tio and Jukola where the rest of us can come and have a go (and find we're not hard enough). When I see the elites running unbelievable times, when the 16s and 18s leave me trailing miles behind, they earn much more respect than running in some non-IOF make-believe race where the great unwashed are kept away.

Elites beat the opposition, which is good. Elitists exclude the opposition, which is bad.

[Domhnull Mor]

It's interesting to see the topic of track distance times being brought up. This summer I helped a member of my club to qualify for JWOC by beating the 3000m time set by their national federation. Although it is quite clear from previous results that the athlete in question is by far the best orienteer in their age group from their country, the 3000m track time had always been outwith their reach and this was a selection criteria for the national team. If they had not beaten the cut-off time they would not have gone to JWOC. We managed to cut almost 40 seconds from the previous PB. Our feeling within the club is that track running is of little significance (except for speed training). It's far better to measure speed through terrain. Running round on tracks may be fast but running hard through terrain on a straight-line bearing is (usually) of more benefit for an orienteer.

[DIDSCO]

Seriously would the National Team in Bmx or mtb select their riders on how fast they could do a 1hour road bike timetrial. Having a track criteria to make a national team in 'real' orienteering is just b@llocks, get out in some real hilly forest in terrain, off the tracks ,plan yourself a hard course for 80mins, that track criteria will soon be out the window

[graeme]

It's interesting to see the topic of track distance times being brought up.

I would be astonished if such a massive cut in 3k time didn't bring all-round benefits to the athlete. Distance running is about shifting oxygen, and whether you use it to run flat out or to keep your mind clearer at O-race pace, that level of improvement can only be good. Doubly so in sprint, it's no coincidence that (WOC gold and silver) Marten Bostrom and Scott Fraser led their national rankings in marathon/10k.

I see all the time juniors who've been orienteering for years getting good results based on excellent technique, but who dont have the speed/commitment to make it at elite level*. If your clubmate really is 40sec faster than he was, and wants to be an elite orienteer, having the criteria is already showing its worth.


* And of course that's absolutely fine because there are plenty of other things to do with your life!

[Gross]

15km race.... at 4min / km = 60 min. If you top speed is 3.5min / km you are able to handle the fast terrain... if you're technically sound but can only run 4.5min / km then you are at least 7.5 mins down on the start line..... or something like that Speed counts, technique counts, terrain running counts.....

[DIDSCO]

You're missing the point, your 3km/5km track time is not the critical deciding factor to your success as an orienteer in the forest, so why should it be a selection criteria. When British runners don't perform at major internationals its generally not their track speed but their terrain running speed, technique, mental side letting them down. Just look at the Gps tracks from WOC if you want the prove. Brits have an obsession with track speed because its an easy way to train with less access to forests and quality technique trainings in the U.K, which makes it very easy to get lulled in to believing its importance is greater than what it actually is.

[graeme]

Just look at the Gps tracks from WOC if you want the prove.

Looking for what? I don't see anything on the GPS tracks that distinguishes the Brits from anyone else of similar ability. Winsplits shows that the reason our mid-packers are mid-pack is their mid-pack splits on every leg, with the exception of the run in. And historically, our WOC team has tended to do better in technical terrain than easier stuff.

I do agree that people tend to overvalue what they're good at.

Speed counts, technique counts, terrain running counts.....

but almost everyone's best results come from hanging on to a fast group

[andypat]

If your clubmate really is 40sec slower than he was, and wants to be an elite orienteer, having the criteria is already showing its worth.

I agree with Graeme, apart from the bit I dont agree with

[buzz]

You're missing the point, your 3km/5km track time is not the critical deciding factor to your success as an orienteer in the forest, so why should it be a selection criteria. When British runners don't perform at major internationals its generally not their track speed but their terrain running speed, technique, mental side letting them down. Just look at the Gps tracks from WOC if you want the prove. Brits have an obsession with track speed because its an easy way to train with less access to forests and quality technique trainings in the U.K, which makes it very easy to get lulled in to believing its importance is greater than what it actually is.

Couldn't agree more.

I see all the time juniors who've been orienteering for years getting good results based on excellent technique, but who dont have the speed/commitment to make it at elite level*

And I see all the time juniors who get good results based on excellent running speed but don't have the ability/commitment/resources/advice to make it at elite level.

That's the point its not about one thing or another you need to excel at all aspects of the sport - even TD3 urban races like this year's WOC sprint need more than a good track time to win.

The resources and advice needed to improve physically are readily available to any aspiring athlete - its the technical/mental aspects where they need the most help/encouragement - whether that's through setting appropriate selection criteria or facilitating training and coaching.

[graeme]

Couldn't agree more.

So can you tell me what this evidence I'm missing on the WOC GPS tracks is? For obvious reasons I've spent a lot of time looking at them, and if I'm missing something I'd like to know what it is.

[buzz]

Its interesting to note that at the start of this thread it was assumed that the failure to select full teams at JEC and EYOC was due to a lack of funds, and later the discussion turned to failure to meet performance criteria with talk of percentages behind the winner at selection races and PB's on track races. The lack of explanation to the athletes concerned or the stakeholders generally is for me as much of spit in the eye as the selections (or lack of) themselves.

As the coach of one of the athletes concerned I asked what criteria had been used in their case - in fact it was none of the above although for some reason I was asked to keep the reason confidential.

Surely if they want to encourage juniors to work hard, they should at least be clear about what it is they need to work on BEFORE the selection races.

The guidelines give the selectors the right to require athletes to meet minimum standards and vary these standards for specific competitions but they don't insist that these standards are published. Individual athletes are required to ask the selectors if they want to know. The only reason I can see for doing it that way is that the minimum required standards are varied between athletes - that would also explain the need for confidentiality post selection.

As a squad coach its certainly reasonable to propose different targets for different athletes and its also arguably more efficient to allow the squad coach to pick the team based on their knowledge of the athletes and whatever criteria they see fit, BUT the current BOF system is neither one thing nor the other aspiring to work to a set of criteria and then allowing the selectors and coaches to do as they please.